Time to Publish the Arbil Agreement?

“The Arbil agreement” seems to be on everyone’s lips these days. Iraqiyya is calling for the “full implementation of the Arbil agreement” and makes threats about “withdrawal from the political process” in the case of non-implementation, focusing on demands such as the strategic policy council and the internal bylaws for the government. For its part, Prime Minister Nuri al Maliki’s State of Law alliance maintains that most of the agreement has already been implemented and that some of the lingering demands of Iraqiyya are “unconstitutional”. Recently, Maliki ally Shakir al-Darraji made the interesting comment that the original agreement called for the defence minister to be a “Sunni” rather than a member of Iraqiyya, thus echoing comments by Maliki himself in early May:

What exactly is the Arbil agreement? On 13 June, veteran Kurdish politician Mahmud Uthman called for the “Arbil agreement to be published”, reflecting the considerable chaos relating to its exact nature. The problem is primarily that Iraqi politicians appear to have short memories and there are already multiple competing narratives about what the agreement is and how it came about.

It can be useful therefore to revert to press reports written around 11 November 2010 when some kind of agreement between the blocs led to a decisive meeting in parliament that finally broke the 8-month long stalemate after the 7 March 2010 parliamentary elections and eventually led to the formation of the second Maliki government in December 2010. At the time, the prevailing nomenclature differentiated between at least three different concepts relating to the government-formation process. Firstly there was the process itself, which was mostly referred to as the “Barzani initiative” after the name of the Kurdish president. That process consisted of negotiations that took place both in Baghdad and Arbil. Second, there was the 15-item agenda for the Barzani initiative, which appeared to have the form of catch phrases rather than anything specific. The world watched with great hilarity as Iraqi newswires churned out optimistic reports that the political parties had agreed on such momentous items as “adherence to the constitution”, “consensus” , “national reconciliation” and “national partnership”, apparently without ever specifying what processes would lead to achievement of those lofty aims (with the possible exception of the dismissal of the accountability and justice board which was mentioned in several reports). Thirdly, the Kurds claim they obtained separate agreement with Nuri al-Maliki concerning their 19 demands for joining the government, many of which were highly imaginary since they were predicated on the outcome of parliamentary action and approval by future popular referendums. At any rate, this part of the process mostly seemed related to a bilateral Maliki-Barzani pact rather than a trilateral affair also involving Iraqiyya and Ayad Allawi.

Perhaps there never truly was an Arbil agreement? Today, Iraqiyya keeps asking for the implementation of “balance” in the ministries of state, as well as the creation of a strategic policy council with executive powers. But if the details weren’t hammered out at the time, Iraqiyya’s leverage is now greatly diminished. Maliki can plausibly claim that the strategic policy council is unconstitutional, as are many of the Kurdish demands. Fortunately for the Kurds, though, Maliki seems desperate to hold on to their votes and sees them as a potential pillar of the “political majority” alternative he keeps talking about. Iraqiyya are in a worse position since at least some of its members may feel tempted to remain on the side of Maliki or defect from Iraqiyya if matters should come to a head.

It is in other words unclear whether the publication of what are now historical documents would be truly helpful at the current stage. Indeed, for Iraqiyya in particular it would be truly stultifying if it had agreed on such sectarian language as reserving particular ministries for “Sunnis”, since its leaders insist on maintaining a nationalist rhetoric. Maybe it would be better to simply focus on the security ministries, which must be filled regardless of what was agreed last year. Another week has now passed by without any significant progress; parliament has been postponed again until 28 June and Ramadan is fast coming up (1 August). When Ramadan comes to an end there are exactly 120 days left to decide what to do with the US forces in Iraq, and it would be good to at least have a new defence minister at that point.

Reidar Vissersaid

Salah, other than Mahmud Uthman and Abd al-Aziz al-Hakim, most Iraqi politicians keep referring to the Arbil agreement as the point of departure for solving the current crisis. What Uthman probably means when it comes to the Americans is that they played a key role in pushing Allawi into accepting the castle in the air that was the “strategic policy council”. I think he exaggerates their bad intentions – they may have genuinely believed it could work even though it was plain to see for everyone else that it couldn’t.

Kermanshahisaid

That US troops have to leave should be a completely undisputed issue, that Maliki let them stay until now is already shamefull, but ayone who tries to push for prolonged occupation after 2011 is basicly coming out as a complete puppet and American agent, so he should have no legitimacy left in politics. How can you call yourself a nationalist and want your nation to be occupied by another country?

Jasonsaid

Kermanshahi, Either you have much greater confidence than I that the Iraq govt and security forces are prepared to repel the Iranian mercenaries (which is unlikely since they don’t even have defense or interior ministers to hold them together), or else you are an Iranian spy pressing for an American departure so that the security forces will collapse and Basra and its oilfields fall back into the hands the Iranian-backed Sadrist mafioso. How can you call yourself an Iraqi nationalist when you strongly advocate placing Iraq in grave danger of becoming another Lebanon, receiving orders from Teheran.

Salahsaid

Reidar,
Thank you for your comment, I do agree with most of what you stated. I strongly agree “they may have genuinely believed it could work”, but what was missing what hidden with Iraqi politician minds, what they have hided in their virtual memories after they pass that point of the agreement each one hunt in his way.

Whatever before agreed in arbil the attentions was to get things forward, but all parties “Iraqi side” failed with themselves to come over what their personal/ attached believes. What mad that agreement dead, from last election until now three ministries not filled also the security issue still shaky and not promising, furthermore the distribution or ministries far been realistic and fair for all waves of Iraqi politics domain. The question stills what next and what the future of politicians in Iraq next election.

Wise leaders learn the lessons of history, the US assumed that Maliki was a wise leader, they were wrong and it was obvious. I hear that Dawa party is duplicating Baath practices to the details. To be fair, not only the Americans thought that the idea of strategic policy council might work, I think all those who had faith in the political process thought so too, yet it seems that nobody realized how much Maliki despised democracy.
IMHO The US neither wants nor has a mandate in Iraq anymore. Once again I call for a UN mandate over census and the elections.

Reidar Vissersaid

Faisal, I think it was pretty obvious that the Arbil agreement would mean more muhasasa and ethno-sectarian quotas, rather than less of it. Disconcertingly, Ambassador Jeffery reiterated his belief in the Arbil agreement and the oversized government formula in late May. This just goes to demonstrate how the Obama administration supports the Iranian vision of a compartmentalised, sectarian Iraq 110% even as it is claiming to do the opposite. Which is also why the anti-Iranian stance outlined by Jason will remain fiction unless there is some kind of fundamental change in Washington and the ways in which its analysts read the situation in Iraq.

Santanasaid

Kermanshahi- I agree with Jason wholeheartedly- infact I think ANY Iraqi leader that calls for the immediate departure of the U.S troops is either an Iranian stooge that wants to pave the way for Iran to turn Iraq into a “Hezbollah Lebanon”” type set up or is afraid of the Sadrists (the Mafia) or is plain stupid and should not be in a position of power ……any politician calling for an extension is doing it out of concern and knows the ISF is a joke. This does not mean he or she is an American agent at all but a true Iraqi patriot !!….no one wants an occupying force in their country but the role of the U.S Forces now is pretty much a “Peace-keeping” force and a deterrent.

Everybody should read into the the latest Iranian comments/strategy. It is very interesting- they have their Ambassador in Baghdad visiting various leaders and saying stuff like ” We really don’t care whether the U.S Troops stay or leave- we think this is an Iraqi affair and we don”t like to meddle in other peoples affairs” (COMPLETE BS) then they even get Sadr to say “I will not allow Iran to hit any U.S forces in Iraq”…..all B.S !!!!! this new Iranian strategy is to fool the U.S and everyone into thinking “Wow- things are good and maybe we should withdraw” it is all a SMOKE SCREEN !!! the reality is that they CAN’T wait till U.S combat troops are gone- Maliki wants them out ASAP so he can really show us what dictatorship is all about, the Sadrists want them out cuz Iran said so, Promised Day andRightousness Militia all wanna be integrated into a new JAM-Hezbollah- Quds Force set up……oh and there will be Iraq’s own “Sabra and Chatilla ” next year when 3,400 MEK members in Camp Ashraf will be slaughtered – women and children as well !!

Reidar Vissersaid

But Santana, can you point to anything creative that the USG or the Baghdad Embassy with their thousands of staff members are doing to actively bring Iraq out of its current predicament, I mean moving it away from ethno-sectarian tension instead of enshrining that sectarianism in a way that ultimately serves as an argument for a continued US presence?

The developments in the football assocation story seemed to suggest once more that the absence of Shiite monolithism is probably a better guarantee for a pluralistic Iraq than any number of US troops or diplomatic staff.

Salahsaid

seemed to suggest once more that the absence of Shiite monolithism
Reidar,
If I can add my two cent here, in the past (before 2003) it was never Shiites been absence in Iraqi sports teams. as we know most of the iraqi players are from that sect, who done well along years of Iraq sports, let bring in mind their wining on Iran football early 80’s or lat 70’s when President Ahmad Hassan Al-baker reward each payer of that team a section and amount of money to built their new homes, those homes still and well know in good area within baghdad City.

What we have in iraq before and now in power, is group of Iraqis there body inside iraq and their minds & hearts is in Iran.

Jasonsaid

To be fair, I don’t think anyone in the U.S. (not event the idiot Biden) actually WANTS a compartmentalized, sectarian Iraq. The Arbil agreement should be viewed in light of the desperation that had set in to form ANY government after months and months of failure. The same indigenous forces that made that such a hurdle continue to be responsible for the current deadlock. Also keep in mind, the fact that the USG may not have succeeded to break the existing deadlock doesn’t mean that things won’t get much worse if they leave. Absent ministers in the security posts, I see it as a very fragile situation.

I do concede that I believed that Maliki was the closest thing to a leader with a popular mandate and, under the circumstances, the least bad hope for moving the country forward. Very painful to hear accusations that he is becoming autocratic, although I wonder how seriously to take those accusations. How autocratic is he compared to alternative leaders that want to take his place? Or as my economist friends always ask, “compared to what other alternative?”

Jason,
I agree, it is easier to believe that the US policy is so hazy that the USG is following the pretense of victory rather than oppose the strong Iranian influence openly and risk a backlash. I also agree with Reidar’s statement that the absence of Shiite monolithism is a better guarantee (in the long run) for a pluralistic Iraq, but this mechanism is so fragile and vulnerable to outside influence, which makes Santana’s scenario of Iranian hegemony a more likely outcome than a true pluralistic Iraq.

Reidar Vissersaid

For the past two weeks or so, the new hot issue in the Iraqi political debate has been to “shrink” the government (finally). So why don’t Iraqiyya leaders see the potential advantages of allying with Maliki on that issue? Since Iraqiyya’s ministries are mostly of the important (and hence unshrinkable) category – finance, education, agriculture, electricity etc – the net outcome of such a process could actually be to strengthen their influence inside the cabinet. If they decided to forgo the strategic policy council for the sake of compromise, there would no longer be any pretext for Maliki to deny them the defence ministry.

Reidar,
You still have faith in Maliki? In the brutal world of Iraqi politics its everyone to himself, all the time. I think Iraqiya had shown its willingness to compromise and sacrifice for the general good on many occasions, but this was interpreted by Maliki and his clan as weakness.
Maliki is paranoid, his problem is not in the strategic policy council, its in his unwillingness to accept or deal with opposition. At this stage I believe it is safer for Iraqiya to stay clear of overt partnership with Maliki; he sunk too deep to salvage.

Reidar Vissersaid

Faisal, to be honest, I don’t think Maliki is that much worse than everybody else. If Iraqiyya leaders truly see no hope in working with him then I think they should pull out of the government and act as an honest opposition. As outlined above, I think they would do better by scrapping the whole strategic policy council idea and instead offering Maliki help in reshaping the existing government by making it smaller (i.e. ditching Wasat, ISCI, Fadila and the Sadrists who are no longer needed for Maliki after they king-made him.)

Reidar,
I had the same mind like you but events changed my mind. Maliki’s deep commitment to his Dawa party and its ideology separates him from others. Honest opposition works in a place where being in the opposition is safe, in Iraq it is not. Maintaining a foot in the government is a measure of protection. In this context, ditching the small parties is not a good idea at all.

Jasonsaid

This is the first significant mention of Iraq by the U.S. media in over a year. Granted it is the NYT, voice of the American Left, but it makes Allawi and Maliki sound like immature children on the verge of allowing Iraq to collapse.

Reidar Vissersaid

“There is a widespread recognition now among American officials that inclusiveness over effectiveness was a mistake.”

Hear, hear!

I made that point in DC repeatedly in summer 2010, viz. http://historiae.org/governance.asp and was basically told I was being unrealistic and that all hell would break out if any of the darlings of Paul Bremer were left out of the mix.

The problem with both Allawi and Maliki is that they are still pursuing aims that are unlikely to become reality, i.e. the political majority of Maliki and the “real powersharing” (the strong strategic policy council) of Allawi.

Faisal, what is the problem with shutting out the Sadrists and the rest of the NA minus SLA? Don’t you think Maliki could change during such a process?

Santanasaid

Reidar- You are still dreaming of the “180” solution….I used to also think that was the way to go at the time and I am glad it didn’t now that Maliki has shown his true colors. I have given up on this guy…I really don’t see any government working with Maliki at the helm !!- neither inclusive nor a majority because he is an Iranian agent thru and thru.

The answer for Iraq is true patriotism and the willingness of all Iraqis to hold hands and shun any external meddling ! but the problem with that is that all these Saddam Era Opposition leaders in power now don’t care about Iraq one bit…Jaafari ? Hadi Alameri? Ali Aladeeb? Solagh? Chalabi? Sunaid, Tareq Najem, Bahaa Alaaraji, Jalal Talabani, …..I can go on and on…if any of them had half as much loyalty to Iraq as they do to Iran then there may be some hope….a State Dept official told me last week that they are deeply dissappointed with their darling Maliki – and then blurted out in complete frustration……..ready for this guys??…..drum roll….he said …”Why the hell can’t the Iraqi people ALL join hands rise and just overthrow the Bastard and his Daawa party like the Iraqis have done a few times historically? I am talking about a true blue military coup??/!!!

I sat there stunned…..and was thinking wow ! I never thought I would ever hear that from any U.S Official !……not a bad idea actually ……and may actually work if the CIA would get off their butts and help out ….but Iran will never allow it to happen because it might bring stability, prosperity and happiness to Iraq and spoil all their evil plans to export Wilayet-El-Faqeeh or whatever the hell they call it…….especially with Syria slipping away , they need Iraq more than ever !

Reidar,
I had the same mind like you but events changed my mind. Maliki’s deep commitment to his Dawa party and its ideology separates him from others. Honest opposition works in a place where being in the opposition is safe, in Iraq it is not. Maintaining a foot in the government is a measure of protection. In this context, ditching the small parties is not a good idea at all, besides some of them have militias.
A coup is not a good idea either, the only side capable of executing a coup is Maliki’s, US support of a counter coup cannot be subtle and the cost of failure is too high to risk.
Timing is everything and the tempo is heavily influenced by Iran through Talbani.What I am saying is the presidency is important. Basically, unless timing reflects the pulse of the people of Iraq favorable change will not come from within. I think the US’s position will improve when it contains the Kurdish line, to my mind there is less US and more Kurdish influence which favors instability for the sake of separation.

Reidar Vissersaid

Santana, the whole idea behind the “180 solution” was that it would change Maliki’s mindset during the course of the process. I still find the noises coming out of State of Law re a future US presence to be sufficiently ambivalent that you might still conceivably envision Maliki seeking support from the Kurds and parts of Iraqiyya to enable some kind of extension – the recent official party pronouncement on the issue notwithstanding. By the way, I found Nujayfi’s latest threats to be throroughly deplorable!

Faisal, don’t you think there is considerable internal Kurdish opposition to Talabani executing some kind of pro-Iranian move on the issue of the US troops presence?

Reidar,
Maliki’s mind set is to cover up for as long as possible, nothing could have changed that. A true sharing of powers would have blown his cover.
Sure there is considerable Kurdish opposition to Talbani, but “pro-Iranian move on the issue of US troop presence” sounds like an oxymoron only a trader like Talbani can work around. It means more Iranian covert involvement for a face saving US presence and a hanged political process.

Jasonsaid

Here’s an idea for some enterprising Iraqi politician: introduce a bill making it a crime for individual politicians to accept money from foreign governments. Then spread it to the newspapers and get on television at every opportunity and hammer away mercilessly at everyone that refuses to support it as being bought and paid for. Accuse them of being traitors and foreign agents to rob the Iraqi people of their alliegance, their resources, their country.

Even if it doesn’t have a prayer of passing into law, demand over and over in the loudest possible voice for full disclosure by all politicians of all moneys received, as a civic, moral, national (religious?) duty, to prove their nationalism and loyalty to Iraq. Someone that is clean and spotless record himself; an Iraqi version of Harry Truman that can take the case to the people.

Are there any politicians out there hitting the airwaves, or the blogs, or whatever, playing the role of opposition? Anyone standing out? Any investigative journalism or media pressure? The spectrum of Iraqi politicians seem to have multiple weaknesses ripe for attack by new upstarts.

A few more election cycles should help. Upstarts need opportunities to show their stuff in the lower levels of govt. As I recall, Iraq is long overdue for local elections, and it should be time before long for another round of provincial elections.

I still can’t believe there is no term limit in the Iraqi Constitution for the PM.

Kermanshahisaid

The reason that Iran is injustly seen as such a demon by some Iraqis is purely due to secterian and racial hatred. It is in America’s interests to have hostility between Iran and Iraq, but it is in Iraqi interests to have good ties to it’s neighbours, particulary Iran and Syria. Unlike Iran, the US is actually occupying Iraq, and although there are rumours Iran wants to make Iraq into a client state, it’s 100% sure that the US wants Iraq to be a satelite state and they can maintain this through occupation. Saying you support the occupation of Iraq by a foreign agressor to prevent possible Iranian interference in the future makes absolutely no sense, why would a nationalist not want interferance by a neighbour but want occupation by an imperialist foreign force? The only reasons are corruption (they get paid to be American puppets and represent American interests), or hatred (weather racial hatred against Persians or religious hatred against Shi’as), which does not rationally represent interests of the Iraqi nation, who’s interests have been constantly harmed for over 20 years now by American agression.

Jasonsaid

Sure, K, it’s all about racism. It has nothing to do with the sight of Khamenei’s Basiji thugs slaughtering innocent Iranians (also Persian) for protesting a stolen election. Or ordering the murder of Rafik Hariri and turning Lebanon into a client state. Or closer to home, funding the Sadr mafia to attempt control of Basra and take its oil.

Salahsaid

” a demon by some Iraqis is purely due to secterian and racial hatred”

This not an accurate statement, if we talking about Iraqis from different sec. not purely one sec or part of it, even Iraqis Shiites are more and more hate seen Iran dominate their country. Its obvious in south Iraq many cities like Basra Omarah and other they publically accusing Iranians mangling in their country.

Let not forgot that during Iraq/Iran war 1980 most of those fighting that war are Iraqis from south.

As for US interests, of course that serve well there goals in Iraq. in same talk’n Iran have also interests in Iraq both gaining for Iraqi sectarian conflicts which ignited for many reasons the major one it’s the lawlessness of the country went through after Bremer dismantled Iraq police and military force in one singe.
If there is hatred and sectarians conflicts between Iraqis you should had broken off right when Iraq invaded and all things collapse. it took more than a year after 2003 sectarian went of, so that hold some serious questions who behind that who benefits for that.

Kermanshahisaid

Jason, did you know Khamenei is not a Persian and majority of Iranians are not ei ther? Did you also know that during the six months of riots in 2009-2010 a confirmed 48 people were killed, 72 accordign to opposition claims. Now compare that ruthless regime’s “slaughter” of civilians to what neighbouring Arab countries did: Tunisia (1/10th Iran’s population): 300 dead in 2 weeks, Egypt 900 dead in 18 days, Syria 1300 dead in 3 months (1/4th Iran’s population), Libya (<1/10th Iran's population), 13000 dead in 4 months, Yemen (1/3rd Iran's population) 1200 dead in 6 months, Bahrain (1/150th Iran's population), 100 dead in 3 months (equivilant to about 15 thousand Iranians). Apart from Syria they are/were all pro-American regimes, now you wanna tell me that Iran is still the worst just by default? And you know this year only 3 protesters have been killed in Iran, that compared to like 35 in Iraq, both Barzani and al-Maliki have outdone Khamenei. But Bill O'Reilly and Glen Beck told me Iran were the bad guys, right?

Now let's compare the death of 40 protesters and Harri who was actually killed by Mossad, and the blame was put on Syria, but I guess all of that's not true and it's a secret Iranian conspiracy (uh-hu), to the amounth of civilians the US has killed thusfar in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya and Somalia? Is it 40, is it 400, is it 4,000, is it 40,000 or is it 400,000? My guess is, it's closest to the last figure, but let's pick the second last just so you won't complain. 40 Vs. 40,000 now who are the bad guys here?
Meanwhile, these same Iraqis which hate Iran (supposedly because they are so "ruthless" that they "slaughtered" 40 rioters two years ago, praise Saddam for being a great hero and the fact that he killed not 40 but 1 million innocent people is totally irrelevant to them, infact, they ahd it coming for them just for being Shi'as and Kurds. And now you want to tell me it's got to do with Khamenei's ruthlessness and not with racial or religious hatred?

Jasonsaid

K, I don’t want to hijack Reidar’s blog responding to all of your allegations. The bottom line is that if Khamenei’s power and influence is allowed to grow in Iraq, he will seek to replace real elections with fake ones (LIKE THEY HAVE IN IRAN) and to re-exert control through his mercenaries. NOT EVEN THE IRANIANS want to continue with Khamenei as their Overlord, living with his boot on their necks. Why should Iraqis?

Yes, I am one of those naive Neocons who believes that if we protect and sustain this fragile Iraqi democracy for long enough that local civil and military institutions will eventually grow up and mature in support of it, and that through this process Iraq can eventually become a peaceful and respected member of the free world. I believe the same would be true for Iranians if they could rid themselves of their self-appointed overlords. Allowing Khamenei’s minions to get their hands on Basra’s oilfields would delay that process for generations.

Santanasaid

You deserve an Honorary citizenship from the Iranian government- your defense of Iran and it’s evil regime can only be matched by Hadi Alameri or Ibrahim Al-Jaafari. The Iranian government is the most evil bunch on earth – nothing compares to them-NOTHING- except Nazi Germany maybe.

I hope the Khamenie- Ahmedenejad rift brings the collapse of the government but more is needed cuz the exporting of Wilayet-e-Faqih will continue…as long as the Mullah’s are in power.

Sorry to say this but I pray daily that Iran does something stupid like launch a missle on a U.S Base in the Gulf or try to go into Bahrain or attack the UAE……so the U.S can make them wish they were never born.

Then maybe the area can live in peace then.

Reidar Vissersaid

OK, I sense a bellicose atmosphere here and would like to encourage everyone to get back to the original subject of the post please (which had to do with the Arbil agreement). Or there is a new post about Nujayfi and Sunni separatism which may be of interest.

Kermanshahisaid

The main problem for Iraq is not Iran, not the Kurdish seperatist, not Nujayfi and other Ba’athists, Sadr, ISCI or al-Qaeda, but it is the same problem as all other countries in the region and infact the world have, which is the consistent interfearance of the US. This has been a problem for 20 years and still is. Anyone who opposes Iranian interfearance because he is a nationalist and doesn’t want another country to interfear in his country, should definetly oppose a foreign occupation of his country. If not, than that double standard clearly exposes, racists, secterianists and American stooges from real nationalists.